Warrantless snooping controversy snares Leahy

Nov. 20, 2012

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, seen in this 2011 file photo, on Tuesday forcefully denied an online report saying he supported a bill that would allow the government to make warrantless searches of citizens' online accounts. / Free Press file

Written by

Free Press Staff Writer

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., found himself in a maelstrom of controversy Tuesday after an Internet news site reported he had authored an amendment to a bill allowing federal agents to have warrantless access to people’s email and other accounts.

The report, by Declan McCullagh, CNET’s chief political reporter, claimed Leahy had inserted language in a proposed update of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act that would allow investigators at 22 federal agencies to pore over a person’s emails, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts and Twitter messages without a search warrant.

CNET is a major media and technology site, and the report triggered a hurricane of comments on social media, including an impromptu petition to Congress entitled “Tell Congress: Stay Out of My Email!” that was backed by 2,300 messages.

Leahy himself — or his office, at least — joined the fray, firing off a series of Twitter messages rebuking the CNET report.

“Ideas from many sources always circulate b4 a markup 4 disc., but Sen. Leahy does NOT support such an exception for ... search warrants,” one of his tweets stated.

The proposed legislation is scheduled for a hearing next week.

Leahy, on his Facebook page, asserted: “The rumors ... are incorrect. Many have come forward with ideas for discussion before markup resumes on my bill to strengthen privacy protections. ... One of them, having to do with a warrant exception, is one that I have not supported and do not support.”

David Carle, the senator’s spokesman, said in an interview Tuesday afternoon with the Burlington Free Press that Leahy, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has the job of being the “manager” of all proposals for changes in the law.

Carle said he suspects McCullagh mistakenly assumed that Leahy was backing a plan for warrantless searches by being listed as the manager for the proposal.

“This was a draft document for ideas to be discussed,” Carle said. “The ideas come from various sources, and so there’s a misconception that Leahy changed his bill. He did not.”

(Page 2 of 2)

Undaunted, CNET issued a follow-up report Tuesday afternoon stating that Leahy had done an “about face” after receiving criticism of the measure.

“Leahy has abandoned his controversial proposal that would grant government agencies more surveillance power — including warrantless access to Americans’ e-mail accounts — than they possess under current law,” the updated report said.

McCullagh did not respond to a Burlington Free Press email request for comment.

Two longtime advocates for Internet privacy interests said Tuesday they continue to view Leahy as a champion on privacy matters and questioned the CNET report.

“Sen. Leahy has really been a very strong advocate for privacy,” said Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington D.C. “By instinct, he is always on the right side of these issues.”

Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology said he was confident Leahy was “not backing off from his support for privacy,” and the criticism aimed at Leahy was misplaced.

“He has other members of his committee who do not support the warrant protection that Sen. Leahy supports,” Dempsey said. “The senator was trying to accommodate those members or find a way address their concerns. ... I think the real focus should be on other members of the committee who have proposed amendments that would gut the Leahy bill.”

Leahy’s bout with Internet critics Tuesday came 10 months after he came under fire for supporting a bill that would allow the government to go after rogue websites worldwide that improperly distribute movies, music and other programming.

Opponents, including Google and other Internet entities, complained the measure amounted to government censorship of the Internet. The bill ended up being shelved.